@TatorsRe: "This issue isn't going to live or die by the actions
of any individual state, since there are significant differences in the basis of
their appeals."

If the Supreme Court upholds the 10th
Circuit's ruling, it will invalidate all state laws prohibiting marriage
between people of the same gender. It will effectively legalize same-sex
marriage in all states.

Re: "Regardless which side of the issue a
person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment
section."

Agreed, but I am a big fan of communication and
dialogue. The Supreme Court's decision either way will disappoint millions
of Americans. Engaging in dialogue helps us understand the other side and temper
our expectations and reactions. The trend I've seen is that as we discuss
this issue, people tend to become more understanding of the positive benefits of
allowing gay and lesbian people to marry. Personally I have moved from
opposition to strong support in the last five years as I have learned more about
the issue.

"It's doing the most UN constitutional thing by trying to make law from
religion, and that is completely unacceptable."

Trying to make
law from religion? Seriously? The law was ratified by the voters in the state
of Utah. The Church itself doesn't engage in politics except to the fact
that they tell members to be engaged in politics by exercising their right to
vote.

I never heard the bishop of any of my wards tell the members to
vote for Mitt Romney or any declaration sent down from the 1st Presidency
suggesting the same.

The only political thing I ever heard from the
pulpit was regarding prop 8. Besides that there really is nothing specifically
political at church.

To suggest the Church is somehow involved in
telling politicians in Utah or anywhere else how to do their job is pretty far
off.

There are plenty of states that have marriage amendments that in
a nut shell define a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Maybe my comments come across as judgment to you, but they
are not intended to be. Perhaps you may want to look at it from my
perspective:

For most of my life I denied that aspect of my life. I
had to always had to put on an act in front of everyone. You cannot imagine the
countless derogatory comments I would hear my friends and family members would
say about gay people. I secretly thought that if they felt that way about
others, they surely felt the same way about me.

After I came out, I
would still hear occasional derogatory comments made. The friend would quickly
add a side comment for me like "don't worry, you are not like those
gays."

Finally, imagine overhearing family members talking about
a popular TV show that has some gay characters. Imagine hearing a sister you
love with you entire heart say that such things make her sick. Imagine the
heartache to think that something that I cannot change about myself makes her
sick. I still love that sister and her family, but I feel a little awkward
whenever I am around her now.

The state of Utah has a valid reason for defining marriage as between one man
and one woman. The AG should continue defending the laws of Utah.

I
believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best scenario for raising
children. I believe that this best case scenario ought to be promoted by our
society. Our laws currently benefit marriage; thereby promoting marriage. This
is right and proper.

While I do believe that same-sex couples deserve
rights and protections under the law; I don’t believe that same-sex unions
should be promoted by the law on equal footing with marriage.

I
don’t believe that not promoting same-sex unions on equal footing with
marriage constitutes violence or a denial of basic civil rights. I do not
believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is
required to grant civil rights.

This is a lost cause. II think we should just accept the marriages and get on to
something else. Lots of things to legalize in Utah, and lost of things to make
better. This fight will not be won in the highest courts.

I think the State of Utah is doing a good thing. A Supreme Court ruling will put
the rest of the states opposing Same-Sex marriage to rest. It's a 95%
chance that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Same-Sex marriage. Utah is
doing the rest of the country a favor. It will be interesting to see what the
people of Utah do to avoid following the rule of law for our country....

Two federal judges on the 10th circuit ruled that Utah's law was
unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define
marriage. When two federal courts rule opposite, it is time for the Supreme
Court to rule. No amount of seminar postings from the same-sex marriage crowd
will change the outcome.

I love this state... Its willing to take on issues that are important to
families and the future of this country... Too many people and too many
Government entities worried about Political Correctness.

The
Constitution is clear... Sexual Preference does not qualify one to become a
member of a "protected class"...

I am a strong supporter of the Church of Jesus Christ's definition of the
family, as set forth in "Family Proclamation," on September 23, 1995 by
President Gordon B. Hinckley, and which has been supported by Church Authorities
since. Until Heavenly Father reveals another definition, that is the one with
which I am in agreement; so should every other member of the Church who believes
that a Prophet speaks to us today. They raise their hands after a General
Conference to support him and all Church leadership. I will do likewise until
Christ's return to earth.

I hold no animosity nor do I bear any
guile towards my fellow man or woman for beliefs they hold, and will always love
my neighbor as myself, as we are taught by Christ, but if their actions (not
their beliefs) are contrary to that which has been revealed, and if they act on
those beliefs, it is up to their Bishop, if they are members of his ward, to
decide what is necessary, and, until then, it is not my place to pass judgment.

Will Utah be the linchpin again? Utah's legislature provided the 36th and
final state vote that was needed for the repeal of Prohibition. Perhaps
Utah's appeal of the same-sex marriage case will make same-sex marriage
legal throughout the United States.

I believe the Supreme Court will
merely let the appeals court ruling stand.

In other news, Alito refused today to halt same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania
pending an appeal of the case which struck down the voter approved ban.

The Governor decided not to appeal the May decision which declared the ban
unconstitutional, so a county clerk decided to take it up. Two lower courts
have ruled she does not have the legal right to be involved, and she asked to
Supreme Court to stay the marriages while she works on the appeal.

@Mike Richards: "The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define
marriage."

When? The 7th stayed marriage in Indiana pending
appeal but ruled the state must recognize the marriage of a lesbian couple where
one partner is dying of cancer. If they did not expect marriage to be legalized,
why set the precedent by allowing one?

@redwingsYou don't hold bad feelings towards LGBT people you just
support thier being treated as second class citizens that do not get all the
same rights and protections you have, how could anyone see that as intolerant?

When the route to appeals was first laid out, it was estimated it would cost the
state 3 mill. Looks now like the cost, even with the Supreme COurt appeal, will
be more like 600k. I think it is well worth the money to put Utah's name on
the case and established a national law.

While the health care needs of many Utahns go unmet due to legislative inaction
the State of Utah proceeds to deny the rights of its LGBT community. This is a
fantastic waste of money (how much health care could these legal expenses pay
for), and in the suffering it engenders is criminal. In the future Utah will be
seen as the Mississippi of the SSM struggle.

"And regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be
legally determined in any newspaper comment section. It's just a place for
people to vent..."

Yes, this forum has been a place to vent, but
it has also been a place for people to present and debate their arguments. I
believe this has been advantageous to marriage equality proponents. Most human
beings value fairness and aren't inclined to deny it without good reason.
What has been demonstrated on these pages is that the argument against SSM is
neither good nor based in reason.

One's loyalty to his/her
religious teachings may suffice for some, but this may be challenged soon as
well. I'm seeing more and more stories of believers taking the debate
directly to their own churches and using their own holy books and theologies to
make their arguments. So I don't know that one's church or temple is
going to be a refuge for these ideas either - at least not for much longer.
Forums such as this one have simply illuminated the subject to clearly and human
nature is kicking in. We value fairness.

Not sure where you got that from my post. Civil unions
provide " all the same rights and protections (I) have". How do you
know that I do you know that I do not support secular legal status for gay
couples? I did not mention this in my post.

Intolerance and bigotry
are just as much alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among
traditional marriage supporters. To deny this is hypoctitical and dishonest....